Customized goods and services, such as print and other types of digitally mastered information product goods (e.g. CDs and DVDd) and services, differ from non-custom manufactured goods or services in that such goods and services are generally not pre-stocked as “off-the-shelf” items but, instead, must be specifically manufactured or provided to meet the buyer's particular requirements. Consequently, customized goods and services cannot simply be purchased “off-the-shelf” at fixed prices appearing on standard price lists. Instead, their prices are established when the exact goods or services are actually specified, either by single or multiple order(s), invitation-for-bid (“IFB”), request-for-quote (“RFQ”), or request-for-proposal (“RFP”); only then can the manufacturer or service provider assess the precise quality and manufacturing or service specifications required to perform the job.
The general procedure used in the prior art of procurement of customized goods and services is that the buyer provides the actual solicitation to one or more vendors with whom, in general, the buyer has had sufficient previous experience or recommendation to know what type of product or level of service can be provided. For purposes of this description the term “vendor”, unless further qualified or clearly having a different meaning readily apparent from the context, means an entity in the market for providing customized goods and services and, unless specified, does not require that the entity being qualified meets any criteria or preference. Similarly, for purposes of this description, the terms “solicitation” or “solicitations” shall mean, individually or collectively, an order, IFB, RFQ, or RFP, while the terms “quote” or “bid” shall be used interchangeably and mean any type of pricing or other response from a vendor to an order, IFB, RFQ, or RFP.
After receiving the solicitation, the vendor reviews the buyer's product manufacturing and delivery specifications and requirements that are stated therein, including but not limited to physical specifications, characteristics of style, quantities, mode of shipment, delivery schedule, and quality level required to perform individual jobs or estimated job requirements over a given period of time. Then based on its previous experience in producing or providing the requested goods or services, the vendor provides an estimated price quote or bid to the buyer. Generally, the buyer will provide the solicitation to a single or very limited number of vendors, and either (1) award the contract to the single or lowest bidder; (2) award the contract to a vendor whose quality or working relationship is preferred if that preferred vendor's quote or bid is sufficiently low; or (3) “shop” the lowest quote or bid to other vendors to determine if they are willing to match or underbid the initial low quote or bid.
In following this general procedure in the prior art, however buyers of customized goods or services confront the so-called “iron triangle” of quality, timeliness, and cost. Buyers want a product or service that is good, fast, and cheap, but what they discover is that traditional procurements methods will, at best, only achieve two of these three goals on any given job. Thus, a buyer might demand and receive top quality on a “rush” order, but only at a high cost. Conversely, negotiating a lower price may achieve cost savings, but also compromise quality and timeliness.
This problem is heightened by great elasticity in the so-called “market” price of many customized goods or services, which can vary widely from vendor to vendor and from week to week. This elasticity results from the fact that pricing of such customized goods or services greatly depends on (1) the level of service and quality desired; (2) the labor and equipment required to produce the job or provide the service; (3) the amount time involved in producing the job or providing the service; (4) whether the job or service can be engineered, designed or furnished in a cost-effective way; and (5) whether the customer order can be included in the vendor's production schedule, while still complying with the required delivery date.
This last factor is particularly crucial when the vendors are “hard-iron” manufacturers or service providers with high overhead and labor costs, such as suppliers of print and information products. In the case of such vendors, idle equipment and labor can be devastating to their profit margins. At the same time, such vendors must be ready to service their regular customers on short notice, which means planning for downtime in the production schedule to ensure that their machinery is available for “rush” orders. Because of the limitations of traditional procurement methods, vendors are often left not only with unscheduled holes in their production schedules, but also unable to fill downtime purposefully set aside for last minute “rush” orders from regular customers. Managing customer job orders in a way that minimizes these “holes” in the production schedule is frequently what distinguishes the profitable vendor from the insolvent one.
As a result of this tension between the cost of idle equipment and labor and the need to preserve downtime for regular customers, vendors are constantly seeking short-turnaround jobs to fill their production “holes” when their regular orders do not materialize. To obtain these short-turnaround jobs, many vendors will resort to extremely low pricing, provided that they can do so without losing the goodwill of their regular customers. This pricing strategy is called “contribution pricing” because it involves bidding for work at below normal profit margins knowing that any income above out-of-pocket costs will still “contribute” 100% to the vendor's bottom line in comparison to the cost of letting its labor and machinery retain idle. In current printing markets, for example, “contribution” pricing on a regular basis is found in federal and state government procurements of customized print goods.
Contribution pricing occurs in the pubic sector because federal and state agencies are often required by law to make bid opportunities available to large numbers of vendors in order to obtain “full and open competition.” Where Government agencies are further required to award contracts to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, procurements of customized goods typically result in poor quality control and relatively high administrative costs that must be subsidized by the taxpayer. In contrast, traditional procurement methods and prior art devices in the private sector have emphasized quality control by limiting the vendor pool for customized goods and services to a small number of reliable vendors with whom the buyer has previously done business.
There is a significant cost problem, however, associated with limiting the vendor pool to a small number of suppliers. Lacking the discipline of a more competitive market, vendors who know that they are bidding against limited competition will offer and charge higher prices. Prior art methods attempt to address this problem of non-competitive pricing in one of two ways: (1) longer term contracts with preferred vendors in established commercial relationships that lump procurements together over an extended contract period in the hope of enhancing the buyer's purchasing power and thereby obtaining controlled term pricing; and (2) “best buy” or “best value” procurement practices that award jobs based on factors other than price and which are largely creative user or quality control driven. Such alternative prior art methods are now being adopted increasingly in the public sector due precisely to quality issues arising from “full and open competition.”
In both public and private sector customized product and service markets, however, traditional procurement methods and prior art devices have failed to solve the “iron triangle” because of their inability to take advantage of “contribution” pricing without incurring prohibitive administrative costs or sacrificing quality or timeliness. There are several key reasons for this failure.
First, in order to find the manufacturer or service provider who is willing to offer the lowest “contribution” pricing on any given job, the buyer must often request price quotations from a larger vendor pool than they are prepared or equipped to manage efficiently. A larger vendor pool would, in theory, be desirable because it usually means that a lower price quote or bid can be received. This is well-known in the general business world. In the actual business environment, however, identifying such a large vendor pool is generally not practical. The main reason is that gathering and maintaining information about a large number of current and potential vendors is time consuming and expensive. Few companies have the time, money, or inclination to maintain a large, up-to-date database on such potential vendors, particularly when soliciting dozens of quotes or bids can itself require staff and administrative time that costs more than the savings generated from receiving a greater number of competitive bids. This disparity is heightened by the fact that many customized goods or services involve relatively low dollar purchases or procurements, which is often the case, for example, with printing jobs.
Second, even if a buyer were willing to absorb the administrative costs associated with establishing, maintaining, and managing a large database of vendors to improve the competitiveness of their bidding, the buyer is often reluctant to do so because quality control becomes more difficult as the vendor pool increases. A crucial aspect of quality control is obtaining information about the performance record of vendors from whom the buyer would like to solicit quotes or bids, particularly with respect to the quality and dependability of goods and services output by each vendor in the vendor pool. This is difficult not due only to the volume and nature of the information required, but also to the fact that the buyer must generally obtain such information from its own dealings with the vendor. In such circumstances, the reliability, price history, and quality of a vendor's work for other buyers may not be obtainable. As a result, buyers are reluctant to seek goods or services from new vendors because negative information on their reliability or quality may then have to be learned first hand.
This problem is made more acute by the fact that the procurement of customized goods and services frequently requires specialized knowledge and expertise in finding the right vendor for each job. Most businesses hire purchasing officials with general procurement knowledge who are then given responsibility for a wide range of purchases. As a result, the purchasing official is ill-equipped to manage large numbers of customized procurements efficiently and without loss of control over the production of individual jobs. Instead, the purchasing official is forced to rely on the vendor's expertise in designing or engineering a job, which often results in a more expensive (and more profitable for the vendor) design, engineering, or production process.
Third, even if the buyer is willing to make the financial investment necessary to hire procurement personnel with the administrative experience, staffing resources, and specialized product knowledge to manage a large pool of vendor and monitor each job closely for quality control and contract compliance, the buyer has no guarantee that vendors will offer contribution pricing. The reason is that even vendors who would gain, in an immediate sense, from contribution pricing to fill a production hole are frequently unwilling to offer that pricing to their regular customers. Such vendors are primarily concerned about losing their customers' goodwill when the vendor is unable or otherwise fails to offer contribution pricing on a repeat basis. After once receiving a quote or bid reflecting contribution pricing (e.g., due to idle machine time at the vendor's production plant when the contract must be performed), the regular customer would expect to pay the same low prices for all future jobs from that same vendor, even when the vendor lacks idle production capacity. The vendor is then faced with a Hobson's choice of either risking the loss of the customer account by refusing the less profitable job (thereby forfeiting the sales and marketing costs previously incurred to obtain the customer account) or suffering financial loss by displacing more profitable work to accept the regular customer's lower paying work.
As a consequence of the foregoing obstacles to overcoming the “iron triangle” of quality, timeliness, and cost, there has been a long felt need for a system and method of competitive pricing for custom goods and services that: (1) identifies and manages a vendor pool large enough to obtain the benefits of enhanced pricing competition, without imposing high administrative costs; (2) enables the buyer to procure from a greater number of vendors without causing a loss of quality control or contract compliance; and (3) encourages vendors to offer contribution-level pricing on a consistent basis, while identifying vendors willing to offer contribution pricing on any given job.